Almost All Sanctions Are “Unserious”

The New York Timesreports on the Russian response to the latest U.S. sanctions:

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia signed a decree on Monday formally recognizing Crimea as a “sovereign and independent state,” laying the groundwork for annexation and defying the United States and Europe just hours after they imposed their first financial sanctions against Moscow since the crisis in Ukraine began.

The predictable hawkish view of this news is that the initial sanctions were far too limited to have any effect, but that assumes that there is a sufficiently punishing sanctions regime that could have prevented or reversed Moscow’s recent actions. As always, hawks fault Obama for going too slowly in doing what they want, but the problem here as on other issues is that he is attempting to do the wrong thing. It should give sanctions advocates pause that threatening punishment and then following through on the threatened punishments has had absolutely no effect on Russian behavior. Then again, why would they have any positive effect? It’s almost as if Western punishments are useful to Moscow, because they provide something for it to ignore and/or defy. The administration’s position is that it can impose additional sanctions as needed, but this suffers from the same flawed assumption that Russia can be successfully coerced out of what it is doing. What if that isn’t true? If it isn’t, it doesn’t matter whether the sanctions that Obama announced are “unserious” or not, because imposing such sanctions is based on a misunderstanding of how to alter Russian behavior.

Like many other regimes, the Russian government doesn’t usually take kindly to foreign governments telling it what it can and can’t do in its own neighborhood, and it doesn’t respond well to threats and punitive measures. If this has surprised Westerners in the past, it shouldn’t be a surprise now. When the U.S. passed the Magnitsky Act, did this cajole Russia into adopting reforms of its legal system or force it to commit fewer abuses? Obviously, it did nothing of the kind. All that it achieved was to irritate Moscow and convince them of American hostility, and it led to a series of Russian retaliatory measures that damaged relations with the U.S. and made the situation inside Russia significantly worse than it was before. Attempting to compel desired changes in Russian behavior contributed to a deterioration in the conditions that the attempt was supposed to ameliorate. These tactics almost never work, but Westerners keep trying them out of a misguided belief that anything that the other government dislikes must be the right and the smart thing to do. All sanctions are ultimately “unserious” in that they are reflexive responses to international events that often achieve nothing good. Sanctions frequently can’t deliver the results that their advocates claim that they can, but they can be dreadfully serious in their ability to wreck relations with other states and make bad situations worse.

Hide 27 comments

27 Responses to Almost All Sanctions Are “Unserious”

Judging by the intemperate and inflammatory official comments, it seems likely that there is to be a serious attempt at Russian regime change, by attempts to collapse the Russian economy. It seems to be seriously believed that this is possible. But what if there is a Russian version of “Give Me Liberty, or Give me Death?” Under such a scenario of endless escalation, at some point, if a nation refuses to submit, don’t atomic weapons fly, as they were planned to, by both sides for just such reasons of national survival? If this is seen as viable for Israel’s nuclear deterrent policy of “The Samson Option” why would it also not be credible for other nuclear armed nations? Particularly since our own nation has a First Strike policy it has not relinquished to this day, in case of a severe threat to its own sovereignty. Aren’t the Russians as likely to behave just as we have warned we would?
This is the madness of 1914, but re-enacted with a hair trigger nuclear arsenal that this time will end all life on earth, for what is essentially no more than testosterone-fuelled one-upmanship by immature leadership.

These minor sanctions were not going to stop Russia. But it is wrong to only consider the effect on Russia. The sanctions were also to show disapproval (a form of protest), and to show sympathy to the new regime in Ukraine. They are meager, but remain the least bad alternative between force and nothing. As nothing fails to convey anything at all, other than absolute acquiescence to the realpolitik of the Melian Dialogue.
Recognize it for what it is: it is not sanctions that supposedly will create regime change or stop the production of a nuclear weapon. It is just a statement of protest.

It’s just one step of many in a dance that has gone on (and will go on) for years.

Obama’s asset freezes apply to eleven people with significant influence over the events in Crimea and in the Russian government: the former president of Ukraine, the leaders of the Crimean separatist movement, and notably several officials who oversee the Russian arms trade abroad. It signals a very specific kind of displeasure to people in a position to make Russia deal with the U.S. to lift or lessen the sanctions. It leaves open the possibility of much broader sanctions, if these should fail to deter Russia from annexing more of the Ukraine.

I doubt anyone seriously believes that Russia can be ejected from Crimea, or that it would be desirable for a coalition of Western governments to try; if that’s your measure of success for sanctions, then they are a failure. However, I think Obama just wants to keep Russia’s advance far enough from Poland, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia that NATO’s European membership has no reason to worry about Ukraine’s problem becoming their problem. When Russia shows that it’s done annexing territory, Obama will accept some token concessions on the part of the Crimean government and lift these sanctions, and the dance will go on a while longer.

I don’t think Obama thinks sanctions can “prevent[] or reverse[]” Russia’s actions in Crimea. Sanctions can be a legitimate way of illustrating to Putin that his Crimea policy, and similar actions in the future, will come at a cost.

It’s about deterrence, not rollback– as everyone this side of McCain knows, the Russian annexation won’t be rolled back at any time in the foreseeable future.

Putin is an old fashioned man. Our current guys (and girls) are girly-boys.

And only a juvenile school-yard bully-wannabe with the historical memory of a gnat would come up with silly name-calling like this. I guess you think Cheney was an old-fashioned man for authorising torture; Bush for invading countries; and Rumsfeld for ignoring the advice of his girly-man generals to have a proper army for such invasion.

Like many other regimes, the Russian government doesn’t usually take kindly to foreign governments telling it what it can and can’t do in its own neighborhood,

Daniel: you know well that on most issues, I agree entirely with your analysis of foreign relations. This statement, true as it is, is irrelevant and manifestly silly to its core. Of course they don’t like being told what they can and cannot do, but surely that is besides the point. Either there is such a thing as international law or there is not. If there is, and I think there is, then the idea of spheres of influence is bunkum as a matter of law. Russia has no more right to march into Crimea and run a referendum than does the US to send paratroopers to Calgary and run a referendum there (as much as many Albertans would probably welcome it); and if it did, I should hope that there would be at least one or two major powers who would protest it. What Russia has done is a violation of international law, and it is right and proper that we protest it.

If it isn’t, it doesn’t matter whether the sanctions that Obama announced are “unserious” or not, because imposing such sanctions is based on a misunderstanding of how to alter Russian behavior.

And if so, the issue then is how. Listen to Parker here and to show we got gonads, send in the Sixth Fleet? Pointless, given that we know it won’t be used; more than that, we know it should not be used. What then? Agora is right: sometimes, you need to register displeasure; and that may come in the form of sanctions. Of course, it is highly unlikely that sanctions would effect a change in Russia’s attitude; but that is not always the point of sanctions. These sanctions should be viewed in the light of collective revulsion of the international community at a manifestly illegal land-grab. No matter whose neighbourhood we are talking about.

Of course Russia will achieve victory in Ukraine: they are willing to fight to the death, commited a lot of resources and able. While the EU and USA talk but won’t honor the promisses made to Ukraine in 93, give a few shark loans and are ruled by imbred idiots.

Now we have a wave of separatist referendums in the EU. What if, say, Venice, succeeds? Or Scotland? The Crimeans were successful, why can’t Venice separate itself from the rest of Italy? And Texas? Why does the texans have to suffer the cretins in Washington that want to steal their guns?

While the EU and USA talk but won’t honor the promisses made to Ukraine in 93, give a few shark loans and are ruled by imbred idiots. … Why does the texans have to suffer the cretins in Washington that want to steal their guns?

All twenty eight members of the EU are “ruled by imbred idiots”? And half-Kenyan Obama is “imbred”? Or did you mean “subhuman mongrel,” given that the rest of your post appears to channel Nugent as well?

“Now we have a wave of separatist referendums in the EU. What if, say, Venice, succeeds? Or Scotland?”

That “wave” has nothing whatever to do with Crimea; to suggest that the two are somehow related demonstrates, er, lack of seriousness. More to the point, the “what if” itself is nonsensical. What if indeed? Is the UK likely to send troops to the Shetlands to protect the ponies? Will the Italians occupy Piazza San Marco? Venice will be richer; Scotland poorer; and no one will notice one way or another. What if, indeed. To even suggest some sort of parallel with Crimea is plain silly here.

I’m with icarusr. Over 80-90% of the time I not only agree with Daniel, I despair that his views are so rarely if ever held or expressed in Washington. But in this case I don’t understand what he thinks the US should be doing as the current scenario unfolds. By definition every counter-move by the US makes things “worse” in the sense that relations with Russia are adversely affected. If that’s the only relevant criterion, then if Russia makes new encroachments on other parts of Ukraine I suppose we should do nothing as well. I doubt Poland and other Eastern European countries, newly terrified of their former occupier, will be nearly as comfortable with an American shrug.

Putin is an old fashioned man. Our current guys (and girls) are girly-boys.

And there you have the answer to the question, “Russia doesn’t respond well to threats, so why do hawks assume we just need to threaten more vehemently?” It’s not about what works, it’s about signaling masculinity (as a certain segment of society conceives of masculinity, anyway).

“Recognizing that Putin’s decision making process is different that the Western’s elite decision making process is not unqualified approval.”

There is no evidence whatever that the Western “elite” is any less “manly” than Putin. You equate posing naked on horseback and sending troops to a poorly defended desert peninsula as a sign of manliness. That’s just silliness. You equate the constraints of democratic decision-making with being “girly” – whatever that means. That too is just silly. It is not the approbation of Putin to which I object; it is the characterisation that I find ridiculous.

Of course, there is. On paper. However, the record of “regime change” operations mounted by the U.S., with or without our allies, since the Iran affair in 1953, suggests that the “regime changers” and those screaming about “territorial sovereignty” in the current situation have long ago shredded concepts of international law when their own “interests” — whatever these are — are involved.

We’re never going to have more influence than other powers in a region if they’ll put men in and we won’t do the same. That’s why we can’t counter Russia in the Crimea, that’s why we couldn’t promote the “moderates” in Syria.

If we care about it we have to be willing to put boots on the ground. If we’re not willing to do that, then we need to keep our mouths shut. Sanctions are just a way for politicians to show they “did something”. Beyond that they don’t accomplish much other than punishing innocent people.

Armchair generals don’t want to admit that, but there’s no way for us to fight a war without actually fighting a war.

“Either there is such a thing as international law or there is not. If there is, and I think there is, then the idea of spheres of influence is bunkum as a matter of law. Russia has no more right to march into Crimea and run a referendum than does the US to send paratroopers to Calgary and run a referendum there (as much as many Albertans would probably welcome it); and if it did, I should hope that there would be at least one or two major powers who would protest it. What Russia has done is a violation of international law, and it is right and proper that we protest it.”

I think that countries like say, Sweden, have every right to protest Russia’s actions. But it is hardly “right and proper” for the US to do so. As poster burton 50 mentions, the USA, with its Monroe Doctrine, is in no position to lecture anyone about “spheres of influence.” Nor is it in any position to talk about international law which prohibits using force in other countries. After Iraq II, Kosovo, and Panama, to use just the most prominent examples of the last twenty five years or so, the idea of the USA lecturing Russia about the rule of international law, respect for the sovereignty of other countries, and so on, is laughable.

And not only has the USA flouted those very same rules, but it has done so under much, much less ambiguous circumstances than those surrounding Russia’s actions. The break up of the Soviet Union, the borders of its constituent parts, the issue of the Black Sea Fleet, the treaty governing it, and the bases, ethnic Russians in nominally Ukrainian territory, the border change in the late 1950’s, the expansion of NATO, the coup bringing right wing Ukrainian hyper nationalists to power, the sponsoring of said coup by the USA and the West generally, and so on, are at least mitigating factors in Russia’s favor. Nothing of the sort can be invoked by the USA (or its toadies) when it came to Iraq, Panama, or Kosovo.

The USA (and its “coalition of the willing” partners) attacked Iraq without so much as a fig leaf of justification. No UNSC resolution, no even credible claim of self defense. And nothing at all like the factors that Russia can invoke described above. Just transparently fake BS about “WMD” and crocodile tears about “human rights.” The non UNSC approved, non self defensive attack on Serbia over Kosovo by the USA (and the rest of NATO) lacked even the WMD non sense, and was wholly based, in terms of formal justification, on phony, hypocritical, selective outrage about “human rights.” In Panama, the USA had nothing at all to point to to justify its actions, other than that one of its puppets had gotten a little too big for his britches. Oh, and that Panama is in the USA’s sphere of influence.

So, perhaps, the USA should spare Russia, and the world, its righteous indignation. You, as a private person, have every right to register your outrage over Russia’s actions. And so do the governments of countries that have no sullied themselves in similar, or worse, actions. But, our (I’m assuming that you, like me, are a US citizen) government has no business doing so. Much less trying to organize a sanctions regime against a government that has not violated international law even remotely as routinely as the USA itself has.

But it is hardly “right and proper” for the US to do so. As poster burton 50 mentions, the USA, with its Monroe Doctrine, is in no position to lecture anyone about “spheres of influence.”

Well, it was galling to see Russia and France lecture the United States on international law in 2002; even more so by an admirer of Bonaparte. And they were no less right in do so. I do believe that if the United States and its allies, and other countries interested in international law, protested the violations of international law, they would, over time, be less prone to violating it themselves. This is how international law has worked. After all, Grotius invented it to justify Dutch piracy on the High Seas …

Did France and Russia try to organize sanction regimes against the USA in 2002? France not only did no such thing, but, once the shooting war started, actually supported the USA. Both Russia and France, IIRC, made plain their objections to the attack on Iraq at the UNSC, but did not attempt to force the USA to face any consequences for breaking international law, once it did so.

But, even if they had done so, hypocrisy on their part hardly justifies it on our part.

“I do believe that if the United States and its allies, and other countries interested in international law, protested the violations of international law, they would, over time, be less prone to violating it themselves.”

I can’t imagine a less persuasive statement.

The US, often in tandem with its allies, violates international law on a routine basis. At the same time, it seems to me, the USA, and its allies, are already the most shrill when it comes to denouncing violations of international law (real and imagined) committed by countries outside the “family.” Russia, China, Iran, Arabs, “rougue States,” Third World states generally, if they violate international law, and sometimes even when they don’t, the USA and its predictable allies are all over them, with not merely denunciations, but with overnight proposals for sanctions, or worse. And yet when the USA and its pals violate international law, that hardly seems to matter at all. Then, in those circumstances, when the shoe is on the other foot, we get a sickening combination of made up off the cuff rationales as to why the aggression “really” is legal, despite the lack of UNSC authorization or credible claim of self defense (eg “responsibility to protect,” “WMD,” “he’s a terrible dictator worse than Hitler who is murdering his own people,” blah, blah, blah), and hand waiving contempt for the very idea of international law as a real constraint (eg “the USA does not need a ‘permission slip” to defend itself, its allies or it interests…”).

I don’t think hypocrisy on the part of the USA (or anyone, for that matter) can ever lead to anything good. If the USA wants international law to be taken seriously, it should start by following it itself.

I don’t think hypocrisy on the part of the USA (or anyone, for that matter) can ever lead to anything good.

I agree. But better a measure of hypocrisy than apathy.

If the USA wants international law to be taken seriously, it should start by following it itself.

To paraphrase Schachter, the United States observes most of international law most of the time, like most other countries. Telecommunications, the postal system, international trade, travel and tourism – you name it – would shut down the world over if the United States, and most other countries, did not abide by international law. It is true that the United States has its share of skeletons in glass closets, but it is possible to overegg this particular pudding.

I can’t imagine a less persuasive statement.

Well, I can, but perhaps I have a better imagination. In any event, sometimes, countries actually buy their own rhetoric: this is as true when it comes to war as it is when it comes to law. It is better, on the whole, that the United States acknowledge international law and protest its violation, even if it has been guilty of similar transgressions, than ignore its violation and thereby possibly its existence.

I disagree. Better a measure of consistency than hypocrisy. If you are not willing to follow a rule, do not complain when others do the same. That is not “apathy,” that is basic fairness.

“To paraphrase Schachter, the United States observes most of international law most of the time, like most other countries. Telecommunications, the postal system, international trade, travel and tourism – you name it – would shut down the world over if the United States, and most other countries, did not abide by international law. It is true that the United States has its share of skeletons in glass closets, but it is possible to overegg this particular pudding.”

Please. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is when international law actually forbids the USA from doing what it wants to do. And, in those instances, the USA couldn’t give a fig for international law. Your claim is like a murderer saying…”Well, I obey the law on jaywalking, speeding, spitting on the sidewalk, even stealing, it is just this one little provision of the penal code that I want to violate….” Great. The US follows the postal union law, but not the UN Charter’s provision on the use of military force.

“…sometimes, countries actually buy their own rhetoric: this is as true when it comes to war as it is when it comes to law. It is better, on the whole, that the United States acknowledge international law and protest its violation, even if it has been guilty of similar transgressions, than ignore its violation and thereby possibly its existence.”

Even assuming that this is true, it doesn’t excuse the sanctions seeking and the endless, belligerent, self righteous rhetoric. The US could, I suppose, note its objections to Russia’s actions, and ask the Security Council to investigate the matter. And then when Russia vetoes any proposal with teeth, just as the USA would do if the roles were reversed (and has in fact done, many times), it should shut up. Having paid the compliment of hypocrisy that vice pays to virtue, the US should leave it at that and move on.

I doubt that Putin will view any sanctions, no matter how “serious”, as a greater threat than the prospect of NATO bases in the Crimea. He’s pretty much put an end to that, and made it unlikely that Ukraine will be admitted to NATO anytime soon. The March to the East has hit a roadblock.

Apropos your discussion with icarusr don’t you think you can carry the “rendered complaintless by hypocrisy” argument too far?

Or, to put it another way, what’s the statute of limitations on same?

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that the instances of our recent crimes against sovereignty are indeed really recent, but even then it seems to me your argument ignores the fact that countries *change.* And change *formally,* so that it’s not Mr. Bush’s America doing the caviling here against Russia, it’s the new America we decided we wanted to be in 2012 with Mr. Obama.

While that seem just a formality, well, that’s a formality one just simply *can’t* ignore not only because deciding on even the most radical change in our policies is what democratic elections such as ours are for, but because because what current regimes say is the standard the entire world recognizes: A country’s position on issues is held to be what it’s *current* regime says.

Otherwise and again, what’s your statute of limitations on the “disarmed by hypocrisy” theory?

So, to take philadelphialawyer’s “murderer” analogy to the next logical step, the murderer should not assist the police in apprehending another murderer, because in this case the victim was his friend?

It won’t do. Sanctioning the U.S. for the Iraq war is defensible, although arguably the four thousand dead, billions wasted, and wrecked international standing we’ve already suffered from our Iraq folly is punishment enough. But further undermining the U.N. Charter and collective security just to punish the U.S. for its past violations is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I agree with Larison that sanctions are not going to convince Russia to give up Crimea. That does not mean that they should not be imposed. States attack and annex their neighbors because they expect the benefits to outweigh the costs. If we impose costs on aggressive annexation of territory, future aggressors will expect similar costs. In some cases, though certainly not all, the additional costs of sanctions will outweigh the benefits that an aggressor hopes for.